https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164208 The scope of the proviso to Section 3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was examined against the separate statutory definitions of "goods" and "capital goods" in Sections 2(21) and 2(11), together with the petitioner's reliance on Section 19(3). Because the question whether the proviso referring to "goods" extends to capital goods raised a disputed issue of statutory interpretation and application, the High Court declined to interfere under Article 226. The writ court left the claim for input tax credit on capital goods to be considered by the competent tax authority, which was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. en-us Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Apr 2014 15:17:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164208 The scope of the proviso to Section 3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was examined against the separate statutory definitions of "goods" and "capital goods" in Sections 2(21) and 2(11), together with the petitioner's reliance on Section 19(3). Because the question whether the proviso referring to "goods" extends to capital goods raised a disputed issue of statutory interpretation and application, the High Court declined to interfere under Article 226. The writ court left the claim for input tax credit on capital goods to be considered by the competent tax authority, which was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164208